Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: No means no...?

Expand Messages
  • Erin Kelly
    When I was studying [modern] Japanese [language], it was helpful to me to think of *no* as s. It sticks onto a noun and implies its posession of something.
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      When I was studying [modern] Japanese [language], it
      was helpful to me to think of *no* as "'s." It sticks
      onto a noun and implies its posession of something.
      So *Tanaka-no hon* translates pretty slickly as
      "Tanaka's book." (The word order can be different, but
      the -no still sticks with the posessor: you could say
      *Hon-wa, Tanaka-no des* - "About the book, it's
      Tanaka's.") It breaks down a little for an English
      brain when you start thinking of "Fukushima's Jiro,"
      but you get the idea.

      (Once you get your head around Jiro, we'll tell you
      you also can use it with adjectives - IIRC, you can
      answer an informal question like "which car" with
      something like "blue's," to mean "the blue one.")

      You may have noticed that Japanese plays a bit fast
      and loose with articles and little qualifying words
      compared to English. Words like *muyo* incorporate
      concepts that take several words in English - it
      doesn't need a "for" or a posession to modify Tenchi.
      You really shouldn't read too much into the choice of
      words in English, because "No Need for Tenchi" is
      really just a translational smoothing of "Tenchi
      extraneous."

      Now if you want to get really confused, try to figure
      out when you use *-tono* and when you use *-dono.*
      (That's almost on topic, isn't it? ;)

      ERIN

      (I really ought to find me a Japanese language list...natsukashii.)
    • Anthony J. Bryant
      ... Heck, that s an *easy* one. You *call* someone (if and only if he s your lord) tono. In all other cases, you append -dono to the person s official title or
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Erin Kelly wrote:

        >
        > Now if you want to get really confused, try to figure
        > out when you use *-tono* and when you use *-dono.*
        > (That's almost on topic, isn't it? ;)

        Heck, that's an *easy* one.

        You *call* someone (if and only if he's your lord) tono.

        In all other cases, you append -dono to the person's official title or
        name.

        Effingham
      • Joshua Badgley
        ... It seems to follow the general linguistic trend of most Japanese compounds; the first sound of the second word/character is usually voiced. So you have
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Anthony J. Bryant wrote:

          > Heck, that's an *easy* one.
          >
          > You *call* someone (if and only if he's your lord) tono.
          >
          > In all other cases, you append -dono to the person's official title or
          > name.

          It seems to follow the general linguistic trend of most Japanese
          compounds; the first sound of the second word/character is usually
          voiced. So you have words like:

          kami : paper

          te-gami : letter; the second kanji is the same as the 'kami' for paper
          above.

          That seems to be the general rule, anyway. There are exceptions, but if
          you don't know better the voicing rule seems to apply.

          Not sure if '-dono' is applied the same, but that's what appears to be
          happening here, ne?

          -Godric Logan
          aka
          Ii Saburou ....
        • Barbara Nostrand
          Noble Cousin! ... I doubt that it does. Basically, you should understand that a lot of Japanese name forms were originally titular. It makes perfect sense to
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Noble Cousin!

            >Tanaka's.") It breaks down a little for an English
            >brain when you start thinking of "Fukushima's Jiro,"
            >but you get the idea.

            I doubt that it does. Basically, you should understand
            that a lot of Japanese name forms were originally titular.
            It makes perfect sense to say things like the leutenant (sp)
            governor of Hirano or something like that. Or even the
            2nd heir of such and such a place.

            >(Once you get your head around Jiro, we'll tell you
            >you also can use it with adjectives - IIRC, you can
            >answer an informal question like "which car" with
            >something like "blue's," to mean "the blue one.")

            There is actually more going on than that. Adjectives
            are inflected in Japanese. So you can make an adjective
            act like a noun. The meaning does shift.

            >You may have noticed that Japanese plays a bit fast
            >and loose with articles and little qualifying words
            >compared to English. Words like *muyo* incorporate
            >concepts that take several words in English - it
            >doesn't need a "for" or a posession to modify Tenchi.
            >You really shouldn't read too much into the choice of
            >words in English, because "No Need for Tenchi" is
            >really just a translational smoothing of "Tenchi
            >extraneous."

            Ahh. Don't you mean muko (over there) instead of muyo
            (useless)? Maybe I should pull out Daijirin. I am
            thinking that perchance you are using a word I have
            never learned or have forgotten.

            >Now if you want to get really confused, try to figure
            >out when you use *-tono* and when you use *-dono.*
            >(That's almost on topic, isn't it? ;)

            Not that difficult really. That is pretty much a regular
            sound shift due to co-articulation.

            Your Humble Servant
            Solveig Throndardottir
            Amateur Scholar
            --
            +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
            | Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM |
            | deMoivre Institute | Carolingia Statis Mentis Est |
            | mailto:nostrand@... | mailto:bnostran@... |
            +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
            | Ignored domains: bestbiz.net, pop.net, hotmail.com, aibusiness.com |
            | vdi.net, usa.net, tpnet.pl, myremarq.com |
            | netscape.net, excite.com, bigfoot.com, public.com |
            | com.tw, eranet.net, yahoo.com, success.net |
            | mailcity.com, net.tw, twac.com, netcenter.com |
            | techie.com, msn.com |
            +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
          • Anthony J. Bryant
            ... In a way, that s pretty much it. Effingham
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Joshua Badgley wrote:

              > On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Anthony J. Bryant wrote:
              >
              > > Heck, that's an *easy* one.
              > >
              > > You *call* someone (if and only if he's your lord) tono.
              > >
              > > In all other cases, you append -dono to the person's official title or
              > > name.
              >
              > It seems to follow the general linguistic trend of most Japanese
              > compounds; the first sound of the second word/character is usually
              > voiced. So you have words like:
              >
              > kami : paper
              >
              > te-gami : letter; the second kanji is the same as the 'kami' for paper
              > above.
              >
              > That seems to be the general rule, anyway. There are exceptions, but if
              > you don't know better the voicing rule seems to apply.
              >
              > Not sure if '-dono' is applied the same, but that's what appears to be
              > happening here, ne?

              In a way, that's pretty much it.


              Effingham
            • Joshua Badgley
              ... I was wondering about this... is there an historical, linquistical link between no and na (what about no and ga , especially as ga is
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Barbara Nostrand wrote:

                > There is actually more going on than that. Adjectives
                > are inflected in Japanese. So you can make an adjective
                > act like a noun. The meaning does shift.

                I was wondering about this... is there an historical, linquistical link
                between 'no' and 'na' (what about 'no' and 'ga', especially as 'ga' is
                occassionally pronounced 'nga')? There seems to be something there, but
                it could just be two things that evolved separately in the language and
                now have grown similar in meaning and sound, but...

                > >You may have noticed that Japanese plays a bit fast
                > >and loose with articles and little qualifying words
                > >compared to English. Words like *muyo* incorporate
                > >concepts that take several words in English - it
                > >doesn't need a "for" or a posession to modify Tenchi.
                > >You really shouldn't read too much into the choice of
                > >words in English, because "No Need for Tenchi" is
                > >really just a translational smoothing of "Tenchi
                > >extraneous."
                >
                > Ahh. Don't you mean muko (over there) instead of muyo
                > (useless)? Maybe I should pull out Daijirin. I am
                > thinking that perchance you are using a word I have
                > never learned or have forgotten.

                "Tenchi Muyou" is the name of a manga/anime series where the main
                character ('Tenchi': Heaven and Earth, IIRMKC) is an 'average' human boy
                (or so you think) who suddenly has a bunch of extremely powerful women
                from various corners of the galaxy drop in on him. The Mu-you is
                literally 'No use', I believe; thus, "No Need for Tenchi".


                Not exactly related to anything having to do with history (except for that
                time/dimensional travel episode, but ... )

                -Godric Logan
                aka
                Ii Saburou
              • Anthony J. Bryant
                ... No, it s Muyo (無用). It s an extremely (although I can t figure out why) famous anime series. It s rare (and kinda nice) to run into a
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Barbara Nostrand wrote:

                  >
                  > >You may have noticed that Japanese plays a bit fast
                  > >and loose with articles and little qualifying words
                  > >compared to English. Words like *muyo* incorporate
                  > >concepts that take several words in English - it
                  > >doesn't need a "for" or a posession to modify Tenchi.
                  > >You really shouldn't read too much into the choice of
                  > >words in English, because "No Need for Tenchi" is
                  > >really just a translational smoothing of "Tenchi
                  > >extraneous."
                  >
                  > Ahh. Don't you mean muko (over there) instead of muyo
                  > (useless)? Maybe I should pull out Daijirin. I am
                  > thinking that perchance you are using a word I have
                  > never learned or have forgotten.
                  >

                  No, it's Muyo. It's an extremely (although I can't figure out
                  why) famous anime series.

                  It's rare (and kinda nice) to run into a Japanophile who *doesn't* follow
                  manga and anime.
                  { g }


                  Effingham
                • Anthony J. Bryant
                  ... Nah. I mean No. Sorry. { g } ... The pronunciation is a dialect/pronunciation issue, it has nothing to do with orthography or origins, I m afraid. ...
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 2, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Joshua Badgley wrote:

                    >
                    > I was wondering about this... is there an historical, linquistical link
                    > between 'no' and 'na'

                    Nah. I mean No. Sorry. { g }

                    > (what about 'no' and 'ga', especially as 'ga' is
                    > occassionally pronounced 'nga')?

                    The pronunciation is a dialect/pronunciation issue, it has nothing to do with
                    orthography or origins, I'm afraid.

                    > There seems to be something there, but
                    > it could just be two things that evolved separately in the language and
                    > now have grown similar in meaning and sound, but...

                    Frankly, they don't seem similar to me at all...

                    Effingham
                  • Joshua Badgley
                    ... Well, my line of thinking ran mainly to the way that the adjectives are split up: one of my professors in Japan liked to categorize them into verb-type
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 2, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Anthony J. Bryant wrote:

                      > > There seems to be something there, but
                      > > it could just be two things that evolved separately in the language and
                      > > now have grown similar in meaning and sound, but...
                      >
                      > Frankly, they don't seem similar to me at all...

                      Well, my line of thinking ran mainly to the way that the adjectives are
                      split up: one of my professors in Japan liked to categorize them into
                      verb-type adjectives and noun-type adjectives. Noun-type adjectives use
                      'na' to modify something which has that quality, and nouns use 'no' to
                      modify something as being possessed of that noun. The connection as a
                      part of a 'set' seems to fit for both.

                      Still, maybe that was just myself.

                      -Godric
                    • Barbara Nostrand
                      Baron Edward! Sorry. But, I am guilty of following some Anime and Manga. I followed: Ge ge ge Kitarou, Ninja Hatori Kun, Dr. Slump Arale Chan, and a couple of
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 3, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Baron Edward!

                        Sorry. But, I am guilty of following some Anime and Manga.
                        I followed: Ge ge ge Kitarou, Ninja Hatori Kun, Dr. Slump
                        Arale Chan, and a couple of others. After the demise of
                        Dr. Slump, I followed Dragon Ball until it became super
                        repetitive somewhere around #12 in the compilations. Also,
                        I own a copy of Ginka Tetsudou no Yoru and did see Hi no
                        Tori in the theatre. I also saw Momotarou Joins the Army
                        on late night television, and for sheer oddity value, I
                        have Twilight of the Cockroaches on video tape. But, no
                        I do not in general follow the same manga and anime as
                        most folks on this side of the Pacific. Incidentally, do
                        you know where I can get a copy of My Neighbor Totoro
                        (or whatever it is called) on DVD? I saw part (but not
                        all of it) at International House at Washington State
                        University. (Incidentally, I did not follow Doraemon. I
                        always got asked about that when folks found out that I
                        was familiar with Ninja Hatori Kun. Yes. I looked at
                        Doraemon at least once, but I could never really get into
                        that one. ) I am also guilty of having a Manga introductions
                        to Noh-Kyougen, and a bunch of other stuff.

                        Your Humble Servant
                        Solveig Throndardottir
                        Amateur Scholar
                        --
                        +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                        | Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM |
                        | deMoivre Institute | Carolingia Statis Mentis Est |
                        | mailto:nostrand@... | mailto:bnostran@... |
                        +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                        | Ignored domains: bestbiz.net, pop.net, hotmail.com, aibusiness.com |
                        | vdi.net, usa.net, tpnet.pl, myremarq.com |
                        | netscape.net, excite.com, bigfoot.com, public.com |
                        | com.tw, eranet.net, yahoo.com, success.net |
                        | mailcity.com, net.tw, twac.com, netcenter.com |
                        | techie.com, msn.com |
                        +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                      • Barbara Nostrand
                        Lord Godric. The -na form is something else entirely. It marks uninflected words with adjectival meanings. If I recall correctly, a lot of these are Chinese.
                        Message 11 of 12 , Dec 3, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Lord Godric.

                          The -na form is something else entirely. It marks uninflected
                          words with adjectival meanings. If I recall correctly, a lot
                          of these are Chinese. Apparently, (and I am going to duck as
                          Baron Edward is currently in graduate school and learning all
                          of this stuff while all I am doing is forgetting) -na in this
                          case is an inflection of -da which you will recall is an
                          existential auxiliary verb. The inflection appears to be
                          rentaikei which puts the verb into an adjectival form. This
                          allows for Chinese adjectives which lack proper inflection to
                          be used in Japanese. -no on the other hand is a joshi which is
                          used to mark a noun as "possessive" or otherwise modifying.

                          Note. A joshi is usually called a "particle" in English texts
                          on Japanese grammar. Rentaikei is one of several possible
                          inflections for inflected words. We always used Japanese terms
                          in grammar discussions in courses I have taken, so I do not
                          know an English term for it.

                          Your Humble Servant
                          Solveig Throndardottir
                          Amateur Scholar
                          --
                          +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                          | Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM |
                          | deMoivre Institute | Carolingia Statis Mentis Est |
                          | mailto:nostrand@... | mailto:bnostran@... |
                          +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                          | Ignored domains: bestbiz.net, pop.net, hotmail.com, aibusiness.com |
                          | vdi.net, usa.net, tpnet.pl, myremarq.com |
                          | netscape.net, excite.com, bigfoot.com, public.com |
                          | com.tw, eranet.net, yahoo.com, success.net |
                          | mailcity.com, net.tw, twac.com, netcenter.com |
                          | techie.com, msn.com |
                          +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                        • Anthony J. Bryant
                          ... Well, that s not far off, although more correctly it would be verbal adjectives and true adjectives There is a historical formation for what are now
                          Message 12 of 12 , Dec 3, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Joshua Badgley wrote:

                            >
                            > Well, my line of thinking ran mainly to the way that the adjectives are
                            > split up: one of my professors in Japan liked to categorize them into
                            > verb-type adjectives and noun-type adjectives.

                            Well, that's not far off, although more correctly it would be "verbal
                            adjectives" and "true adjectives"

                            There is a historical formation for what are now "na-type adjectives" (i.e.,
                            adjectives that require a "-na" before the noun they qualify, like "shizuka"
                            [quiet] or "teinei" [polite] , becoming "shizuka-na hito" [quiet person] or
                            "teinei-na hito" [polite person] ). These are called "keiyou doushi" (verbal
                            adjectives). Historically, they all required the dantei doushi ("copula")
                            following them. The copular ending, in shuushikei (sentence ending) form was
                            "-nari." "Kono heya wa shizuka nari" Means "This room is quiet." To say "a
                            quiet room" one said (in old Japanese) "shizuka-naru heiya." That naru is the
                            copular "nari" in the rentaikei ("attributive") form.

                            Since modern Japanese doesn't bother with many of those endings, and "nari"
                            (itself a contraction of "ni ari") has long since been replaced with "da/de
                            aru" as the copula, that rentaikei "naru" has become "na".

                            True adjectives (keiyoushi) in Japanese didn't require copular ending (though
                            some might tack a copula to the end of the sentence in a more polite/formal
                            setting). The modern "utsukushii hito" (a pretty person) and "Kono hito wa
                            utsukushii" (this person is pretty) uses the same form of the adjective and no
                            copula. In classical Japanese, the rentaikei and shuushikei were different;
                            "utsukushiki hito" is rentaikei while the shuushikei is "ka no hito wa
                            utsukushi." Note the single "i" instead of the modern double.


                            > Noun-type adjectives use
                            > 'na' to modify something which has that quality, and nouns use 'no' to
                            > modify something as being possessed of that noun.

                            Well, I can understand trying to come up with a simple way to describe it, but
                            I'm having trouble seeing what one has to do with the other. All adjectives in
                            the appositive describe their quality to the noun they precede, regardless of
                            whether the adjective uses "na."

                            How is "takai tatemono" (tall building) syntactically or grammatically
                            different from "burei na yatsu" (rude jerk)? They are both an adjective in
                            appostition to a noun, "modifying" that noun.

                            In fact, there is no difference between na and non-na adjectives in usage.

                            It has to do with the historical form of the adjective. And in fact, that
                            division just doesn't hold water. In fact, there is a class that can be either
                            na-type OR normal, and has the exact same function/meaning; it's just a
                            syntactical choice as to which the speaker/writer uses. "wakana bouzu" means
                            "young kid" and so does "wakai/wakaki bouzu." Which one is "quality" and which
                            is "possession"?

                            Effingham
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.